PaxHispanica wrote: scphilli wrote: PaxHispanica wrote:
Doing "research" to make questions take 10 seconds is precisely what NAQT tried to do
this is nice, but doesn't actually say what the problem was.
It does if you read the rest of the post, instead of cherry picking statements and quoting them out of context to try to prove a point. You see, THIS. THIS is why no one in the rest of the country on the hs circuit respects MO Debate either. None of them ever learn to engage the other side and rebut, they just say what they were always going to say and never adapt to the other side or the audience.
No, it really doesn't. Your post goes on to say that tricks still existed, but you don't say what naqt did, how they implemented the policy, for how long the trial period was, what the exact results were, what the methodology was, etc. Furthermore you never really elaborate on what a "trick" is in the first place. It's not my fault you don't provide any substantive information for me to rebut.
Notice how you still don't actually say what the problem was...
If you provide me with some sort of actual study/experiment that proves math calc doesn't work, i'll shut up.
It wasn't an experiment as much as their whole approach to math calc which can be found in just about any NAQT IS set for the last decade. Instead of basically saying "find the derivative of 4x2-7x-ln" they'd be written as follows (QUOTING IS68):
A first-class postage stamp in Freedonia now costs an unknown whole number of
gold coins. The same stamp had cost 38 gold coins until the Freedonian government raised the price by
approximately 21 percent. To find the new price it helps to notice that 21 percent is slightly more than one
fifth. (*) For 10 points—give the new price, in gold coins, of first-class postage in Freedonia.
Let's dissect this a bit. In the first sentence, we know what the q is asking for the whole number of gold coins. The second statement tells you how to find that number. The third gives out a nifty little trick for getting close. The final sentence is just driving the point home of what it is they're asking for. Pretty much anyone who has been playing or coaching by this point knows to use the trick that NAQT themselves put in the answer line after the answer (38 X 1.21) because it's just that simple. NAQT rigorously implements this policy on the hs level by taking exquisitely detailed statistics of what questions went answered, unanswered, negged, etc. and compares them to an optimal model of desired correct answers in the field which they'd ideally have even amongst the distribution. I am not privy to exact results as I am not a member of this organization. I don't have to be. They pretty much admit, there is no way to write these pyramidally or as anything other than here's the trick (by which I mean shorthand that no one actually has to have real knowledge on ust the ability to plug and chug numbers), good luck.
Contrast that with a math theory q in the same packet:
These entities are the points of a projective space. Each step of Newton's method involves constructing one
whose single root is the next approximation. A pair of them comprise the degenerate (*) hyperbola x squared
minus y squared equals 0. They are the graphs of first-degree polynomials and have constant slope. For 10
points—name these geometric objects defined by two distinct points.
As you can see MUCH more information is being communicated in the theory question as opposed to the calculation question. And it is using the information in a way that rewards the person with the most in-depth knowledge in the first sentence, something the calculation question simply can't do. It rewards something that is studied in real life and actually is germane to people's work. One thing you will learn once you are out of high school is how useless a lot of the things that matter to you now (like math calc. which is insanely laughable that it takes such prominence on the ACT and SAT and then a complete backseat to a large percentage of college majors) aren't actually knowledge. They're just little pieces of shorthand (like quadratic formula to pop goes the weasel) designed to aid speed and reflex. That is what a trick is.
And like I said, you try writing the little buggers. Your solution does not work and only places an excessive burden already over-worked writers. This is why we don't ask you "to analyze the meaning of a primary historical source, interpret the symbolism in a literary passage, perform a science experiment" per the HSAPQ site.
<div class="editby">Edited by <a href='http://s4.zetaboards.com/Academic_Compe ... cphilli</a>
, May 11 2009, 10:22:23 PM.</div>